Any shutterbugs in the house?


  1. ajdroidx

    ajdroidx Well-Known Member

    Just wondering if anyone around here was a camera junky? What do you have, what do you like to shoot?

    Advertisement
  2. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    35mm, medium format and when possible, much larger formats like 8 x 10 and 11 x 14.

    The loss of Eastman as a film producer put an end to some of the work I once did, like using BIG film measured in feet. For example, 8 and 16 inches wide by 20 feet in length. I once carried around a five inch aerial camera for "snapshots."

    Kodak put an end to photography for the most part. At one time, they stocked three hundred or more different films and glass plates as well as more than 50 papers in 30+ different weights and surfaces. Not to mention tens of thousands of photographic sundries.

    Kodak went so far as to introduce new films for cameras that were discontinured twenty years hense. The customer was king as far as Eastman was concerned.

    I also shoot some stereo photography and occasionally dabble with old processes like Vectographs and other obsolete techniques and processes.

    I was a working pro for many years as well as a darkroom manager and printer. I can still make a fine quality black and white print, I'll bet.

    Times have certainly changed.

    My preferences for equipment include the Leica M system, Hasselblad, Linhoff, 8 x 10 Kodak Master View Cameras and EK Banquet Cameras. Stereo Realist for 3D.

    Now, I am looking at one of these for 14 MP 5K digital stills:

    RED Digital Cinema Cameras, Lenses and Accessories

    So yes indeed . . . I know just a little more than just a little about photography.
    Dieben and Speed Daemon like this.
  3. ajdroidx

    ajdroidx Well-Known Member

    I used to work a local film lab at a store a couple years ago. I basically ran the place, the manager had to ask me some things at times. I enjoyed it. I even processed some tri-x film in my bathroom a couple times, I forgot what I used, I think it was Diafine or something like that. It also processed neopan.

    Still have my elan 7 sitting around and some techpan in the freezer along with some velvia 50 that will likely stay there now.

    I found it kind of defeated the purpose of processing your own film if you are just going to digitize them and run them through photoshop, so that experiment did not last long. It was a treat to do this though :)
  4. Dieben

    Dieben Well-Known Member

    I once worked for a commercial/industrial photographer who also did high quality portrait photography including fine quality hand tinted color portraits.

    His commercial/industrial studio included a gymnasium sized darkroom with a *huge* enlarger/view camera that you walked inside of to load the 3-foot by 4-foot (?) (!!) negative or film. We would put an 8 or 10-foot high by 20 or 30-foot wide piece of print paper on the wall, expose it with a picture of something like a factory, then use mops and buckets to apply the developing chemicals.

    Say "cheese" :p
  5. damewolf13

    damewolf13 live~laugh~love VIP Member

    If I had my youth back, that is the one thing I would change. I would take photography classes, and get involved in some kind of photography job.
    I think that would have been most fulfilling for me.
  6. 211275

    211275 Well-Known Member

    I do photo and video work professionally, been 8 years now. I shoot a Canon 60D and Rebel T2i. Wanna see some of my work? Pick up the new Import Tuner magazine. I shot the cover model and her layout inside.
  7. argedion

    argedion The TechnoFrog Moderator

    I took pictures but never got deep into it. I'm still pretty much that way today. I enjoy it but not enough to go get the expensive camera and stuff.
  8. mikedt

    mikedt 你好 Guide

    I used to have a Made in East Germany Praktica SLR. No electronics, no batteries, completely mechanical.
  9. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    Took a few photo classes in high school. Loved it! Was my favorite art class. Remember making a camera with a shoebox. :D
    Won a couple awards too!
    These days I don't have too much time but my trusty Canon G10 is what I use. One day if I can justify the cost of a dSLR I'll jump on it.
  10. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    Looks like you're the top dog for photography, Bob. Wow!

    Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why you're looking at Red as opposed to, say Arri for a multi-K cinema camera?

    Pardon my ignorance, since I've never had the budget for more than 35mm film cameras and 2/3" imagers for my ENG-style cameras. I thought that the medium format still camera digital backs would be a better choice for still photography than adapting a digital cinema camera for the purpose. What am I missing? I'd think that something like the 80MP Mamiya Leaf back would be the way to go, especially for someone who already has medium format cameras and lenses.

    I wish that I could afford a digital cinema camera, even though my "run and gun" video shooting style isn't really compatible with them. I almost bought a Panasonic 4K pro video camera, but when I came back down to earth I realized that I'd be better off buying a Sony that used my existing Sony batteries and accessories.

    I expect a full report on what you end up buying! :)
  11. Prinny

    Prinny Resident Linux Nutcase Guide

    I do enjoy taking photos. In my car with me now, I have a Canon Rebel G2 35mm. One of the best film cameras I've owned in a while.

    For my dSLR, I have a Nikon D3100. Great camera. I do miss the whole developing film aspect though.

    I would love to go to school for photography, if I was younger and had the time and money.
  12. zuben el genub

    zuben el genub Well-Known Member

    Have a 20D dslr and a Canon SX 20 IS. Have been playing around for years - I learned from an artist (paint type) friend. The 20 has a 800mm zoom - maybe not good for a lot of stuff, but it sure works for identifying birds.

    I did have some stuff years ago in the magazine my employer put out. I got the opportunity to get aboard a coastal oil tanker. I don't bother with contests, popularity -- I shoot to please myself, and do read and study stuff to improve that. I tend to be more after a feeling.

    I still have my film cameras. I did develop black and white. Think I still have that equipment, too.
  13. Dieben

    Dieben Well-Known Member

    When I became a computer weenie I spent several years converting graphics arts shops, advertising agencies, corporate graphics and advertising departments, etc. to digital. OUT with the film-based cameras and enlargers, the light tables and waxers and knives. IN with the high end digital stuff. (And out with most of the employees too.) I had a software developer at Kodak write me some device drivers to connect the largest Kodak copy machines to my digital graphics computers.

    You have seen the work I was involved in:
    - advertising, brochures, signage, etc. for a major bank.
    - advertising program for a US automobile manufacturer
    - wine labels
    - catalogs for a major retailer
    - design of commemorative coins at a US Mint
    - computer designed graphics for name-brand toys

    I even had an article written about me in a graphics arts magazine.


    So why aren't I rich?
  14. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    It looks to me that you are rich. Many great experiences, public recognition, accomplishment. You can't buy stuff like that!
  15. Dieben

    Dieben Well-Known Member

    These days most of my cameras are digital, but my camera that I absolutely love the most is my ancient Nikon F with the titanium foil shutter that can do 1/1000th.
  16. Dieben

    Dieben Well-Known Member

    Talk about great experiences:

    All of the employees and all of us contractors at the US Mint were subject to intense security checks when leaving the building. One day at the exit my luggage cart load of camera equipment and computer equipment passed inspection no problem, but the little metal hook at the front of my slacks wouldn't make it through the ultra-sensitive metal detector. The security guards wanted me to take off my slacks right there in the crowd of people in line there at the security gate :p
  17. Dieben

    Dieben Well-Known Member

    Ah yes, pinhole lenses and narrow slit lenses. Favorite projects of my childhood.

    Pinhole cameras - has anyone seen the Camera Obscura at the Cliff House in San Francisco? You pay your admission to go inside a 20-foot square building/camera to see live panoramic ocean/beach views projected on a large plate by the the rotating lens on the roof.

    Slit lenses - light bends slightly around the edges of solid objects. That is how pinhole lenses work. Narrow slits also can be lenses. If you look through a narrow slit between your fingers, at the proper spacing you will see narrow grey bands that are interference patterns of the light bending around the edges of your fingers. Spaced properly the slit between your fingers becomes a lens. So . . .

    . . . when the Navy sent me and one of my ROTC buddies from Chicago to Great Lakes navy base near Milwaukee for our jet pilot physicals, at the end they dialated our eyes for an eye test then sent us home. Not wanting to wait for our eyes to recover before making the drive back to Chicago, we used slit-between-the-fingers lenses and could see pretty well. But we drew some pretty astonished stares as we cruised down the Interstate in my top-down convertible sports car with our hands covering our eyes :p
  18. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I disagree. The quality of the negative always determines the quality of the print. These days, PS is used by many pros as a crutch. It is used to solve image issues that a good photographer would never allow to creep into their work flow.

    Lots of "pros" do not know a blessed thing about photography. That said, I come from a time when professional photographers knew a few things. And I am quite bitter, too.

    Yes, you can PS an image and if all you need is a decent looking print and if you can achieve the goal with digital processing, OK, that works for some people I suppose.

    If you create bad negatives--either through poor photography or poor processing--your final print will lack shadow and/or highlight details and those things are vital if you want a truly great print.

    Digital can help but it always comes down to the final print and your goals.

    Certainly, an 8 x 10 view camera and film can create great images, but if your goal is to post images on FaceBook or eBay, it is perhaps overkill. A cheap digital camera is all you need.
    Dieben likes this.
  19. ajdroidx

    ajdroidx Well-Known Member

    As far as camera bodies, I have:

    Olympus OM-1
    Canon Elan 7n

    Canon 20D modified for astrophotography (when I actually had some decent skies)
    Canon 30D - kind of retired
    Canon 5DmkII, probably the best camera I have ever had.
    Canon G12
    Sony cybershot DSC-RX100 should be in in a couple hours. I needed something a bit more compact then the G12, something I could have on me, in my pocket for the low light shooting I often do, sunsets and storms.

    For lenses, I would have to look, but off the top of my head:

    All canon unless otherwise noted:

    24mm f/2.8
    50mm f/1.8
    50mm f/1.4 Kind of messed up, these ones have issues. Never sent it in for repair
    16-40mm f/4L
    24-105mm f/4L IS
    70-200mm f/4L (non IS)
    300mm f/4L IS
    1.4x extender
    100mm f/2.8 USM macro
    11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina

    480ex flash and speed light transmitter. Which is cool, because I can mount both to my g12 when needed, or what ever else camera :)

    Printer Canon pixma pro 4000 mkII. The thing is a beast.
  20. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Sloppy work, I must say.:)

    We were established in 1890 and we had a huge darkroom. Rather, we had a series of rooms. We used rollers and trays for large images as well as deep tanks for weghts. Not a mop or bucket in sight.
    Dieben likes this.
  21. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Several good reasons I am considering a Red. I'll let you know why, when I can let you know why.

    One big problem is when you spend money on a spendy camera, tech canges and better quality arrives and it costs you less money. Like everything tech, it gets better and cheaper and the costly crap drops in value.

    As for Leaf, I am not talking. There are reasons I'll avoid Leaf.

    If Kodak were in the photo business and digital did not rear its ugly head, I would stick with film. It's all Kodaks fault.
  22. Dieben

    Dieben Well-Known Member

    Yes, if the lab uses stale chemicals to process your film the quality of your work is ruined. It's better to develop film yourself. And paying big bucks for dye transfer does not always guarantee great prints.
  23. ajdroidx

    ajdroidx Well-Known Member

    You are right. Too much photoshopping, not enough actually "trying to get it right in the camera" The experiment with the film was to see if I could do it, to see what it was like, and that was a success, but also, since I did not make any prints and just stuck the processed tri-x on the film scanner to import the image to photoshop to make the negative look better then say, "look what I did!" to me was not in the spirit of doing so because I never made any prints from an enlarger. I never did get to that point because getting the equipment and space (I lived in an apartment at the time) and everything else and digital was taking over. I figured if I was just going to digitize the negatives, I might as well go digital :)

    It irks me to see "photographers" going out with the mindset of "I can fix it later" or going out to shoot something and use photoshop to turn it into something else, and have it called "art"

    Sure, I shoot panoramas at times, even HDR images to try to get a more natural image, the way my eye sees it. Yeah, I do adjust saturation and sharpen just a bit, sometimes cloning out stuff, but more often I just leave stuff where it falls because it was part of the scene I was shooting. Even if it includes roads with traffic on it because it was in the scene that caused me to pick up the camera and shoot anyway:

    [​IMG]
    Glow by slitherjef, on Flickr

    Although, whenever possible, I enjoy getting away from the city, the urban snapshot location that is the bane of most photographers and get some shots where I can mount a camera to a tripod and spend some time trying to get my shot.

    Otherwise in the city, at work, on the go, I just make snapshots, which others seem to see as just that, other then the subject matter, then they go on producing digital art creations with photoshop, whereas it takes me a couple moments to do the basic tweaks I need in photoshop or what ever new program I opt to try over the 600dollar premium package.

    [​IMG]
    Sail by slitherjef, on Flickr
    ocnbrze, breadnatty08 and Dieben like this.
  24. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    I've been in that predicament before. It's strange because I've walked through the same model metal detectors when I forgot to take off my belt with a large cowboy buckle, and I've been stopped by a piece of foil left by a roll of antacid tablets. I had one operator who thought that the rivets in my jeans were causing the thing to go off, and he told me to take the rivets out. And he was serious! :rolleyes:
  25. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    We use to photograph buildings filled with people milling about. We delivered prints with no people visible in the photograph, way back in 1920 or so. And, as you might expect, in 1920 or thereabouts, very few local computer dealers stocked Photo Shop.

    How did we do this? Simple. Very Long Exposures. The people moving around did not register on the film but the fixed structures did. Not that we were smart; this was a common technique.

    Jump ahead several or more decades when I left the Dektol filled trays for soldering fumes and a cubicle. I remember when the pros arrived to photograph our new building when we became part of 3Com. These two idiots spent two days or so photographing our building.

    Not photographing our entire facility, mind you. Their task was to take a photograph of just the outside.

    They would endlessly bracket, try different angles. these were a couple of idiots to be sure.

    I took a photograph almost in passing after their entourage left. I used my Bessa Rangefinder and a roll of Plus-X. I had amazing detail owing to the larger format and I used a red filter to darken the sky and bring out the clouds.

    The pro shots were crap and my shots were wondrous. My print was delivered the next day, their image arrived a month or so later.

    Too many kids with no clue in the biz these days. They try to redefine the business in ways to make up for their complete lack of skills. They visually realize the old saw: "It's not a bug, it's a feature." It's not blurry, it is art.

    No it is pure crapola. But remember, I am bitter, so there you go.

Share This Page